← Models

Model profile

GLM 4 9B Chat

Z.aideveloper
2024-06-05release date
#196 / 333Safety rank
#122 / 645Freedom rank

Evidence summary

Safety. GLM 4 9B Chat has an estimated Safety rank of #196; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #101–#284. Its behavior-only rank is #200; company governance moves the combined estimate to #196. Published Safety evidence spans 8 eval lineages and 4 of 7 components. Its strongest relative result is SafeDialBench (ethics, #1 of 18); its weakest is Agent-SafetyBench (spread_unsafe_information, #16 of 16).

Freedom. GLM 4 9B Chat has an estimated Freedom rank of #122; its 90% source-sensitivity interval is #26–#473. Published Freedom evidence spans 5 eval lineages and 1 of 1 components. Its strongest relative result is Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboard (toxicity_attack_non_success_rate, #13 of 246); its weakest is SafeDialBench (ethics, #18 of 18).

Compare this model

Only models sharing at least one published sub-eval are listed.

Official and reference links

Finetunes

Direct finetunes linked to this canonical base model. Quantized and repackaged derivatives are excluded.

Safety evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Safety portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Safety rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
Agent-SafetyBenchcompromise_availability#1 / 1650.8Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchharmful_vulnerable_code#15 / 1623.2Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchleak_sensitive_information#6 / 1638.4Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchphysical_harm#5 / 1641.6Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchproduce_unsafe_information#16 / 1657.2Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchproperty_loss#4 / 1648Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchspread_unsafe_information#16 / 166Source ↗official
Agent-SafetyBenchviolate_law_ethics#8 / 1627.2Source ↗official
ChineseSafescore#16 / 2250.03Source ↗official
DSPSafeBenchscore#7 / 1272.43Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardbias_attack_non_success_rate#101 / 24818.35Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#184 / 24882.33Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#190 / 24848.33Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#234 / 24675.41Source ↗official
FinEval Financial Security Knowledgefinancial_security_accuracy_pct#10 / 1973.1Source ↗official
JailBenchjailbreak_success_rate#13 / 1474.95Source ↗official
M3-SafetyBenchoverall_score#15 / 1984.2Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchaggression#6 / 187.17Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchethics#1 / 187.753Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchfairness#8 / 187.4Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchlegality#2 / 188.103Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchmorality#3 / 187.427Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchprivacy#2 / 187.853Source ↗official

Freedom evals

Rank and direction are specific to the Freedom portfolio. Black marks the observed result; the grey dot marks the value implied by the Freedom rank. Values stay on each source’s native scale.

Eval / sub-evalRankValueDistributionSource
Agent-SafetyBenchproduce_unsafe_information#1 / 1657.2Source ↗official
DSPSafeBenchscore#6 / 1272.43Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardcbrn_attack_non_success_rate#65 / 24882.33Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardharmful_attack_non_success_rate#58 / 24848.33Source ↗official
Enkrypt AI Safety Leaderboardtoxicity_attack_non_success_rate#13 / 24675.41Source ↗official
JailBenchjailbreak_success_rate#2 / 1474.95Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchaggression#13 / 187.17Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchethics#18 / 187.753Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchfairness#11 / 187.4Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchlegality#17 / 188.103Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchmorality#16 / 187.427Source ↗official
SafeDialBenchprivacy#17 / 187.853Source ↗official